IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 77946-0-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION VERNON WAYNE OFFICER,
Appellant. FILED: July 29, 2019
ANDRus, J. — Vernon Officer appeals his conviction and sentence for
unlawful imprisonment, third degree assault, and felony harassment. He argues
that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by granting his
request to represent himself and then abused its discretion in refusing to reappoint
counsel in the middle of trial. Officer also challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence of unlawful imprisonment. Finally, he contends his exceptional sentence
exceeds the statutory maximum allowed for the offenses. We remand for the trial
court to include a notation explicitly stating that the combination of Officer’s
confinement and community custody may not exceed 60 months. In all other
respects, we affirm.
FACTS
In the summer of 2016, Officer and Suzanne Wood met through an online
dating website and began a romantic relationship. Wood moved to Seattle from
Portland to live with Officer, who had just completed a federal sentence for filing a No. 77946-0-1/2
false tax return. After Wood and Officer moved into an apartment in Wallingford,
the relationship soon became troubled.
Wood had previously worked as a receptionist at a law firm and had once
considered becoming an attorney. Officer asked her to help him with a lawsuit
against the federal government. According to Wood, Officer “lived, ate and
breathed” the lawsuit. Officer told Wood he wanted her to work on the lawsuit
seven hours a day. But whenever Wood questioned Officer about his claims,
which appeared to involve money Officer took from an elderly business partner,
Officer “would just go ballistic.” Officer once slammed Wood into the kitchen sink,
telling her that he had previously been in prison and threatened her with harm if
she went to the police. Officer frequently ‘rant[ed] and rav[ed]” at Wood for various
transgressions. Wood also witnessed Officer physically threaten his employer,
resulting in Officer losing his job.
On December 16, 2016, Officer came home in a bad mood. He asked Wood
if she had worked on his case that day. When Wood said that she didn’t want to
help him anymore, Officer became enraged and shoved her, hurting her neck.
The following morning, Wood woke up to Officer screaming at her and
demanding that she cook him breakfast and work on his case. When Wood
refused, Officer repeatedly picked her up and slammed her on the bed. Officer got
on top of Wood, grabbed and scratched at her face, and began punching the bed
next to her head. He yelled that he had nothing to live for and that he would kill
her or have her killed. Wood was terrified and thought that she was going to die.
Wood eventually was able to get up and began packing a suitcase. Officer
tried to grab the suitcase and said, “where do you think you’re going?” She
2 No. 77946-0-1/3
repeatedly told Officer she wanted to leave. Officer sat on a couch by the door
and told Wood she was not going anywhere. She waited for him to leave for work,
but he told her “I’m not going to work. I’m going to stay right here on this couch,
and you’re not going anywhere.” Officer told Wood she was under “citizen’s
arrest.” When she pleaded with him to let her leave, he asked Wood if she was
going to report him to his probation officer. Wood promised Officer she would not.
“That’s the last thing I was going to tell him was yes . . . Because I — I feared for
my life. At that point I really, really did.”
Wood testified that Officer’s truck was blocking her car in the driveway and
she asked Officer for his keys so she could move his truck. He refused to let her
have his keys. She repeatedly asked him to let her leave; he refused. After about
an hour, Officer finally agreed to move his truck.
Wood left in her car but because she did not know the area, she drove
around Wallingford. She looked up the closest police station and put its
coordinates into her car’s GPS. She drove to the station but then became
frightened that Officer would kill her if she went inside. She had blood on her face
and in her hair so she returned to the apartment, confirmed Officer was gone, and
washed herself. She then returned to the police station and reported the assault.
The police officers with whom Wood spoke observed and photographed
scratch marks on Wood’s face and neck. Wood sustained injuries to her face, ear,
and neck, and at the recommendation of medics who examined her at the precinct,
she sought medical treatment for her injuries at the University of Washington
Medical Center. She was diagnosed with acute neck strain and neck contusions,
3 No. 77946-0-114
abrasions, ear pain, and a mild concussion. Her face was visibly swollen on one
side.
The police informed Wood they intended to arrest Officer while she was at
the hospital, so after receiving treatment, she returned to the apartment and
barricaded the door. Officer then began calling her demanding to know why she
had gone to the police. She denied having done so because she was so afraid.
But Officer said he had seen police vehicles outside their apartment, and decided
not to return to the apartment. He rented a room at a local motel instead. Over
the next few days, Officer called Wood over 90 times. Police arrested Officer on
December 22, 2016, at his motel after he sought a temporary restraining order
against Wood, claiming he was afraid of her.
The State charged Officer with third degree assault, unlawful imprisonment,
felony harassment and fourth degree assault. As to the first three charges, the
State alleged as an aggravating factor that they were part of an ongoing pattern of
domestic violence. After jury selection but before opening statements, Officer
waived his right to counsel and represented himself for the remainder of the trial.
A jury acquitted Officer of fourth degree assault but convicted him on the remainder
of the charges and the domestic violence aggravating factors. The trial court
imposed a 60-month exceptional sentence and 12 months of community custody.
Officer appeals.
4 No. 77946-0-1/5
DISCUSSION
1. Waiver of Right to Counsel
Officer contends the trial court erred in permitting him to waive his right to
counsel at trial and abused its discretion in refusing to reappoint counsel when
Officer changed his mind mid-trial. We disagree.
Officer was represented by Joshua Andrews when his trial started on
October 3, 2017. Andrews participated in pretrial hearings, including a CrR 3.5
hearing, and in jury selection from October 3 to October 9, 2017. On the morning
of October 10, before opening statements, Andrews informed the court that Officer
“would like to make a motion to discharge counsel and proceed pro se.’
The court initially responded “I mean we’re — we — we’ve already done jury
selection. We’re at — on the cusp of opening statement. . . And it’s kind of late for
that, to be quite candid about it.” The prosecutor asked the court to “engage with
the Defendant in the colloquy, and then make a ruling at that time.” Andrews stated
“I don’t know what the Court’s authority would be to deny a knowing, intelligent and
voluntary waiver of that right, It is a constitutional right to represent himself.”
Andrews informed the court that Officer was ready to proceed and would not be
asking for a continuance. The court responded “[W]hen it’s brought too late, the
Court has the discretion to deny it.” The prosecutor responded, “I agree with Your
Honor, it is within your discretion. But I do think that it’s important for the Court [to]
engage in the colloquy that we typically use.”
At the request of both the prosecutor and defense counsel, the court
conducted a lengthy colloquy with Officer regarding the waiver of counsel. The
court confirmed Officer had never studied law, but Officer indicated he had
5 No. 77946-0-116
represented himself approximately 25 or 30 years earlier in a trespassing case and
had been acquitted. The court went over the charges against Officer, including the
domestic violence aggravating factors, and the maximum penalty Officer faced.
Officer confirmed he had discussed potential defenses with Andrews and he
understood he would be on his own during trial. The court explained to Officer that
“you’ll be out there by yourself . . . making your own decisions, making some of
your own mistakes, and it’s not going to be my job to fix them for you.” Officer
said, “I understand.”
Officer also understood he could not change his mind once he had waived
counsel:
THE COURT: [Ijf we do this, it’s not one of those things you can say hey, Judge, I think I really made a bad mistake.
MR. OFFICER: I know.
THE COURT: I want Mr. Andrews back.
MR. OFFICER: He was right here.
THE COURT: And expect him to come and clean up the mess for you.
MR. OFFICER: Yes, sir. That isn’t there will be no mess. This man —
was not there. This woman was not there while I was there. I was there. Officer demonstrated a limited familiarity with the evidence rules and some
confusion about hearsay, but he acknowledged that he would be expected to follow
the rules. When asked why he wanted to represent himself, Officer said:
MR. OFFICER: Because I’m not because ‘cause for one thing, — —
this is a hear hearsay crime. There is no video, there was no —
recordings. The lawyer was not present, neither was the State. It’s my word against the other person’s. And I have substantial evidence that proves I couldn’t have done the crime.
6 No. 77946-0-1/7
THE COURT: That that sounds fine. But you understand that that —
— that evidence could if it’s admissible, that evidence could be —
provided to the jury through an attorney as well. You understand that, right?
MR. OFFICER: But he’s not going to get it across to the — the jurors like I will.
THE COURT: So you — you don’t think he’d be as persuasive as you might be?
MR. OFFICER: Exactly. When asked how long Officer had been contemplating self-representation, he
responded “Quite — quite awhile ago. I — I needed — I needed to get to this point.”
The court advised Officer that it was not in his best interests to represent
himself:
THE COURT: Okay. Well, have you ever heard the expression that someone who represent themselves —
MR. OFFICER: Is a fool.
THE COURT: — has a fool for a client?
MR. OFFICER: You betcha.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. OFFICER: I’ve heard that. And I’m I’m the biggest fool in the —
world, I guess, because I’m going to try some Jimmy Stewart here today. Have you ever seen that movie where he’s a he’s a does — —
himself? You seen that movie, I’m sure. The court asked if Officer still wanted to represent himself, despite the court’s
warnings. Officer said yes. The court found Officer had made a knowing,
intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to appointed counsel.
7 No. 77946-0-1/8
The court took a recess and Andrews spent approximately seven minutes
going over a written waiver form with Officer. The form explained clearly the risks
of self-representation and the lack of a right to reappointment of counsel. After
confirming that Officer had no additional questions, the court signed the written
waiver of counsel and discharged Andrews. The court estimated that it spent
approximately 45 minutes trying to dissuade Officer from waiving his right to
counsel.
When the jury returned, the court informed the jury “Mr. Officer at this point
in time has elected to represent himself from here on out.” The prosecutor and
Officer gave opening statements, and the State called its first two witnesses, an
emergency room doctor and a police officer. Officer extensively cross-examined
these witnesses.
After the lunch recess on October11, 2017, and after the State had called
three more law enforcement witnesses, Officer stated that he wanted an attorney
again. Officer told the court that he realized he did not know what was in discovery,
did not know how to question witnesses, and was afraid he “might lose control and
yell or something” when Wood testified. Officer said, “I thought it would be a lot
easier than it is.” Officer asked if the court would reappoint Andrews.
The prosecutor objected because the State had flown in witnesses who
were waiting to testify and who needed to catch their return flights home. The
prosecutor also argued that reappointing Andrews would lead to delay because it
was unreasonable to expect Andrews to pick up where Officer left off as though
nothing had happened.
8 No. 77946-0-1/9
The court stated “I told him I wouldn’t [reappoint counsel]. I’m inclined to
stick with that.” But the court told Officer that it would temporarily defer ruling on
his request, stating that the State had witnesses waiting and it needed more time
to ‘digest this.”
The following morning, the court addressed Officer’s request for
reappointment of counsel. The court noted that it spent a lengthy period of time
discussing Officer’s request to represent himself and determined that Officer
validly waived counsel, despite the court urging him not to do so.
I pointed out all the pitfalls that would exist if he represented himself, his lack of experience with the Rules of Evidence, his lack of experience with criminal procedure, his lack of experience in a courtroom trying cases, the the fact that he couldn’t change his —
mind later on and ask that I bring Mr. Andrews back to clean up any mess he made.
Bottom line is it boiled down to the fact that in my opinion, Mr. Officer wanted unfettered reign to try the case the way he thought was in his best interest. And I don’t know what was going on between him and Mr. Andrews, but I would suspect, based on the many motions in limine that Mr. Andrews brought, they had different theories as to what would be the most effective for Mr. Officer.
The court noted that it had “been very lax in my application of procedural and
evidentiary rules in order to facilitate Mr. Officer’s efforts in getting that testimony
before the jury. . . . I think he’s getting a fair opportunity to elicit the testimony that
he wants by virtue of the fact that I’m ignoring the rules in many ways to allow that
to happen.” The court denied Officer’s request for reappointment of counsel.1
A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to waive the assistance to
counsel and represent himself at trial. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-21,
1 The trial court reappointed Andrews for the sentencing hearing.
9 No. 77946-0-1/10
95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); State v. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d 496, 500,
229 P.3d 714 (2010). This right, protected by Sixth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution,
is so fundamental that it is afforded despite its potentially detrimental impact on
both the defendant and the administration of justice. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d at 503.
The right to self-representation, however, is neither absolute nor self-
executing. State v. DeWeese, 117 Wn.2d 369, 377, 816 P.2d 1(1991). The court
must first determine whether the request for self-representation is timely and
unequivocal. State v. Curry, 191 Wn.2d 475, 486, 423 P.3d 179 (2018). The court
must then determine whether the request is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 486.
We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a defendant’s request to
proceed pro se for abuse of discretion. Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 483. A court abuses
its discretion only if its decision is manifestly unreasonable, rests on facts
unsupported in the record, or was reached by applying the wrong legal standard.
Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 483-84. We give great deference to the trial court’s
determination because it is in a better position than this court because it had “the
benefit of observing the behavior and characteristics of the defendant, the
inflections and language used to make the request, and the circumstances and
context in which it was made.” Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 484-85 (citing State v.
Mckenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52, 134 P.3d 221 (2006)).
a. The timing of Officer’s request
Officer first argues the court relied on the wrong legal standard in assessing
the timeliness of his request. The record does not support this argument.
10 No. 77946-0-Ill 1
We require a request for self-representation to be timely to ensure a
defendant cannot use it “to delay one’s trial or obstruct justice.” State v. Breedlove,
79 Wn. App. 101, 106, 900 P.2d 586 (1995). When a request to proceed pro se is
made governs the amount of discretion the court has to grant or deny it. If the
request is made “well before the trial or hearing and unaccompanied by a motion
for a continuance, the right of self-representation exists as a matter of law.”
Madsen, 168 Wn.2d at 508 (quoting State v. Barker, 75 Wn. App. 236, 241, 881
P.2d 1051 (1994)). If the request is made “as the trial or hearing is about to
commence, or shortly before, the existence of the right depends on the facts of the
particular case with a measure of discretion reposing in the trial court in the matter.”
Madsen, 168 Wn.2d at 508 (quoting Barker, 75 Wn. App. at 241). If the defendant
makes the request “during the trial or hearing, the right to proceed pro se rests
largely in the informed discretion of the trial court.” Madsen, 168 Wn.2d at 508
(quoting Barker, 75 Wn. App. at 241).
Here, Officer made his request to proceed pro se after the jury was
empaneled but before opening statements began. Officer’s request falls into the
last category in this continuum and the court possessed the greatest amount of
discretion to grant or deny the request. Both trial court and the State
acknowledged this discretion. There is no evidence in the record that the court
misunderstood the extent of its discretion.
Officer argues that because his request was untimely, the trial court was
required to deny it. Officer relies on a statement made by our Supreme Court in
Curry:
11 No. 77946-0-1/12
If the request for self-representation is untimely or equivocal, the defendant’s right to counsel remains in place and the trial court must deny the request to proceed pro Se.
Curry 191 Wn.2d at 486. But the use of the word “or” in this sentence must be
read in light of the entire reasoning of Curry, in which the Supreme Court discusses
the “broad” discretion a trial court possesses to allow a defendant to waive the right
to counsel. The Court conclusively rejected any categorical canon:
[A] generally applicable rule cannot be effectively constructed. This is because the decision is fact specific and the extent of the trial court’s discretion is partially tied to the timing of a defendant’s request to proceed pro se. .Accordingly, we have not articulated . .
a bright-line rule instructing the trial court when to grant and when to deny a request for self-representation, nor is it pragmatic to do so.
Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 485-86 (citations omitted). Clearly, if a request is untimely, a
trial court has discretion to deny the request. But it is not required to do so.
b. Officer’s unequivocal request to proceed pro se
Officer next contends that the court erred in finding that his request was
unequivocal.2 He argues that his comments were merely an expression of
frustration with his attorney, not a request to represent himself. We again find this
argument inconsistent with the record.
In Curry, the Supreme Court adopted the Ninth Circuit’s definition of what
constitutes an unequivocal request for self-representation. “[Am unequivocal
request to proceed pro se requires a defendant to ‘make an explicit choice between
exercising the right to counsel and the right to self-representation so that a court
may be reasonably certain that the defendant wishes to represent himself.” 191
2 Officer argues that the court failed to make an express finding that Officer’s request was unequivocal. But our Supreme Court has held that an “oral proclamation from the judge that a request for self-representation is unequivocal is not required if the record reflects that the judge applied the correct requirement.” Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 491.
12 No. 77946-0-1/13
Wn.2d at 490 (quoting United States v. Ant, 41 F.3d 516, 519 (9th Cir. 1994)). It
instructed that trial courts should look at the form of the request (i.e., was the
request made formally in a motion or spontaneously at a hearing), the language of
the request (i.e., was the defendant asking to represent himself or just expressing
frustration), and the context surrounding the request (i.e., was the request made
because of a disagreement with counsel over trial strategy). 191 Wn.2d at 488.
“[T]he trial court must make these determinations on a case-by-case basis, taking
into consideration the circumstances of each request.” Curry, 191 Wn.2d at 490.
Here, the record establishes that Officer unambiguously expressed an
explicit choice to represent himself. First, Officer made the request after
considering the option for “quite awhile.” He told the trial court that he needed
counsel’s help through the pretrial motions stage and through jury selection but
believed he was capable of moving forward on his own from that point. Although
the request was made orally, these statements reveal that his request was neither
spontaneous nor impulsive.
Second, while Officer voiced some general dissatisfaction with And rews, he
was not asking for a different attorney because he disagreed with counsel’s trial
strategy. He expressed a strong desire to act as his own counsel because he was
there during the incidents at issue and Andrews was not. “[W]hen a defendant
makes a clear and knowing request to proceed pro se, such a request is not
rendered equivocal by the fact that the defendant is motivated by something other
than a singular desire to conduct his or her own defense.” State v. Modica, 136
Wn. App. 434, 442, 149 P.3d 446 (2006).
13 No. 77946-0-1/14
We do not find State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 586-87, 23 P.3d 1046
(2001) to be factually analogous. In that case, the defendant sought to represent
himself only to avoid a trial delay caused by the unavailability of counsel. The
Supreme Court held that the defendant’s request to represent himself was not
unequivocal under these circumstances. Such was not the case here. Officer was
not faced with a trial delay due to counsel’s unavailability. And the trial court spent
45 minutes with Officer ensuring that his decision to represent himself was a matter
of choice.
Finally, the context of Officer’s request demonstrates that Officer believed
he could do a better job than Andrews would. He acknowledged that he had not
gone to law school and was not familiar with courtroom procedure. But he vowed
that he was “more than capable of doing this.” Officer stated that he had read all
the discovery and could communicate his position more persuasively, to “show the
jury . . . that I’m for real.” This further shows that Officer made a clear and
conscious decision to represent himself.
Even after 45 minutes of questioning, and being advised against doing so,
Officer remained determined to represent himself. The form and language of
Officers’ request, as well as the context in which the request was made, confirm
that Officer’s request was unequivocal.
c. Officer’s waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent
Officer contends the trial court erred in finding his waiver of counsel was
knowingly and intelligently made because he erroneously assumed he would not
be convicted if he had the opportunity to address the jury directly. But Officer’s
14 No. 77946-0-1115
choice to advance a defense that an attorney might view as unlikely to succeed is
not a basis for finding his waiver less than knowing or intelligent.
To demonstrate a valid waiver of the right to counsel, the record must show
the defendant understood “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation”
and establish “his choice is made with eyes open.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835. The
method for determining whether a defendant understands the risks of self-
representation is a colloquy on the record. State v. Burns, 193 Wn.2d 190, 203,
438 P.3d 1183 (201 9). The colloquy, at a minimum, must inform the defendant of
the nature of the charges, the maximum penalty faced, and the fact that the
defendant must adhere to the rules of evidence and criminal procedure. City of
Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wn.2d 203, 211, 691 P.2d 957 (1984).
The court conducted a lengthy and detailed colloquy with Officer on the
requirements and dangers of self-representation. The court explained the charges
Officer faced and the sentences he might receive if the jury convicted him. The
court emphasized that the trial would be governed by procedural rules and “by your
own admission, you don’t know all that stuff. . . you haven’t had years[’] worth of
training in this area, so you’re at a disadvantage.” Despite acknowledging the
court’s concerns, Officer never wavered from his desire to represent himself. He
also signed a written waiver acknowledging that he would be required to “follow all
legal rules and procedures, including the rules of evidence.”
The court may not deny a request for self-representation because “the
defendant is unfamiliar with legal rules” or over “concerns that courtroom
proceedings will be less efficient and orderly than if the defendant were
represented by counsel.” Madsen, 168 Wn.2d at 505, 509. The court did not
15 No. 77946-0-1116
abuse its discretion in finding that Officer knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waived his right to counsel and allowing him to represent himself.
d. Declining to reappoint counsel
Finally, Officer challenges the trial court’s refusal to reappoint counsel mid-
trial. Once a defendant has asserted his right to represent himself and made a
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of counsel, a criminal defendant is no
longer entitled to reappointment of counsel. DeWeese, 117 Wn.2d at 379.
Following a valid waiver, the reappointment of counsel is within the court’s
discretion, considering all circumstances that exist when the request for
reappointment is made. Modica, 136 Wn. App. at 443. “[T]he degree of discretion
reposing in the trial court is at its greatest when a request for reappointment of
counsel is made after trial has begun.” Modica, 136 Wn. App. at 443-44. A
defendant’s poor performance as his or her own attorney is not, by itself, a reason
to reappoint counsel. State v. Canedo-Astorga, 79 Wn. App. 518, 526, 903 P.2d
500 (1995).
Citing Canedo-Astorga, Officer argues that “the request for reappointment
should be granted absent reasons to deny.” Canedo-Astorga, 79 Wn. App. at 525.
In that case, the court allowed the defendant to proceed pro se and appointed
defense counsel to serve as standby counsel. On the second day of trial, the
defendant moved for the reappointment of standby counsel as his attorney.
Standby counsel responded:
Well, this obviously puts me in a difficult position by having to take over the case halfway through. I am familiar with the facts of the case, however, I did not prepare this case in the last week or so with an eye . .toward trying it. . . .I think if I’m going to be appointed .
back at this point to represent Mr. Canedo, then I would ask that the
16 No. 77946-0-1/17
trial be stopped and there be a continuance until I have such time as I need to consult with Mr. Canedo to determine what it is exactly that he wants, and that would not be a short process, I’m sure, given the history of this case. Canedo-Astorga, 79 Wn. App. at 523. Division Two of this court held that it was
not an abuse of discretion to deny reappointment of counsel under these
circumstances.
This case presents similar facts. By the time Officer made his request,
And rews had been absent for a day and a half of trial. There is no evidence in the
trial record showing that Andrews was available to immediately return to the trial.3
The State argued that any delay would present a hardship to Wood, who had flown
to Seattle from out of state to testify and who planned to return home that same
day. The potential for delay that would result from reappointment of counsel mid-
trial was a sufficient reason to deny Officer’s request. The court did not abuse its
discretion.
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Officer contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him of unlawful
imprisonment because blocking Wood’s car with his truck may have
inconvenienced her but did not interfere with her ability to leave the apartment.
This argument, however, ignores the evidence that Officer sat by the apartment’s
door telling her she could not leave.
~ After briefing in this case was completed, Officer filed a supplement to his pro se statement of additional grounds. Officer attached a letter from Andrews, stating that, after Officer requested reappointment of counsel, the trial court never contacted him as to whether he was available. Andrews asserts that he was, in fact, available and could have returned as counsel for Mr. Officer at any time without any delays to the jury trial.” But we do not consider matters outside the trial record in a direct appeal. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). If a defendant wishes to raise issues on appeal that require evidence or facts not in the existing trial record, the appropriate means of doing so is through a personal restraint petition. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 335.
17 No. 77946-0-1/18
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if a rational trier of fact could
find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). All reasonable inferences
from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly
against the defendant. State v. Washinç~ton, 135 Wn. App. 42, 48-49, 143 P.3d
606 (2006). Credibility determinations and the persuasiveness of the evidence are
for the trier of fact and are not subject to review. State v. Cantu, 156 Wn.2d 819,
831, 132 P.3d 725 (2006).
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains
another person. RCW 9A.40.040(1). A person is restrained if his or movements
are restricted “without consent and without legal authority in a manner which
interferes substantially with his or her liberty.” RCW 9A.40.010(6). Restraint is
“without consent” if it is accomplished by physical force or intimidation. RCW
9A.40.01 0(6). A substantial interference is “a real or material interference with the
liberty of another as contrasted with a petty annoyance, a slight inconvenience, or
an imaginary conflict.” State v. Robinson, 20 Wn. App. 882, 884, 582 P.2d 580
(1978). Words alone can be sufficient to establish intimidation and restraint. See
State v. Lansdowne, 111 Wn. App. 882, 889, 46 P.3d 836 (2002) (when
defendants restrained an insurance inspector by telling her to sit down on the
couch, calling her employer and stating “this girl is not leaving here alive if you
cannot give me a damn good reason why she’s here,” this was sufficient evidence
of unlawful imprisonment as to survive a Knapstad4 motion).
“State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346, 729 P.2d 48 (1986).
18 No. 77946-0-1/19
It is a defense to unlawful imprisonment that the victim had a reasonably
available avenue of escape, unless “the known means of escape . . . present[s] a
danger or more than a mere inconvenience.” State v. Washinciton, 135 Wn. App.
at 50. But even if there is a potential escape route, the defense fails when the
victim is fearful of trying to escape. State v. Allen, 116 Wn. App. 454, 466, 66 P.3d
653 (2003).
Relying on State v. Kinchen, 92 Wn. App. 442, 451-52, 963 P.2d 928
(1998), Officer argues that there was insufficient evidence of unlawful
imprisonment because Wood was able to leave the apartment when she wished.
In Kinchen, the defendant locked his children in his apartment while at work. This
court held that there was insufficient evidence of unlawful imprisonment because
the children were able to safely get in and out via a window or sliding door.
Officer’s reliance on Kinchen is misplaced. The children in Kinchen were
alone in the apartment and had the opportunity to flee out a sliding door. Here,
however, Officer sat directly next to the front door. He told Wood that he was going
to stay there and that she could not leave. This occurred immediately after Officer
physically assaulted Wood and threatened to kill her. Wood testified that she was
terrified of Officer. A reasonable jury could conclude that Wood was unable to
escape via the door because she was too afraid that Officer would hurt her. The
evidence was sufficient to establish Officer knowingly restrained Wood from
leaving and to support the unlawful imprisonment conviction.
3. Statutory Maximum
Officer contends that the combined total of confinement and community
custody exceeds the statutory maximum. We agree, as does the State. However,
19 No. 77946-0-1120
Officer is not entitled to resentencing because a notation on his judgment and
sentence will suffice.
Officer was convicted of three class C felonies. See RCW 9A.36.031(2);
RCW 9A.40.040(2); ROW 9A.46.020(2)(b). The maximum penalty for a class C
felony is 60 months. ROW 9A.20.021(1)(c). The court imposed an exceptional
sentence of 60 months on each count, to be served concurrently. The court also
imposed 12 months of community custody, acknowledging that, since it had
imposed 60 months of confinement, “there may not be time to run that.”
ROW 9.94A.505(5) restricts a trial court from imposing a combined term of
confinement and community custody that exceeds the statutory maximum. For
standard range sentences, the trial court is obligated to reduce the required term
of community custody when the combined time of confinement and community
custody exceed the statutory maximum. ROW 9.94A.701(9). But “[b]y its plain
language, ROW 9.94A.701(9) applies only to terms of confinement imposed within
the standard range.” In re Pers. Restraint of McWilliams, 182 Wn.2d 213, 217, 340
P.3d 223 (2014). For exceptional sentences, ‘a notation on the judgment and
sentence explicitly stating that the combination of confinement and community
custody would not exceed the statutory maximum” is the appropriate remedy.
McWilliams, 182 Wn.2d at 218.
The State acknowledges that if Officer serves his full sentence, he will serve
more time than the statutory maximum permitted. Officer’s judgment and sentence
does not contain the required notation informing the Department of Corrections
that the combined term of confinement and community custody cannot exceed the
20 No. 77946-0-1121
statutory maximum. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to include this
notation.
4. Statement of Additional Grounds
In a pro se statement of additional grounds, Officer contends that the court
erred when it prematurely terminated his cross-examination of Wood. But a
defendant’s right to cross-examination is not absolute, and a trial court has broad
discretion to regulate testimony and witness examination “so as to (1) make the
interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid
needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or
undue embarrassment.” ER 611(a). Officer was permitted to cross-examine
Wood for approximately two and a half hours. The trial court only terminated
Officer’s cross-examination at the end of the day, after Officer repeatedly argued
with Wood and called her a liar. Officer fails to show that the court abused its
discretion in this regard.
The remainder of Officer’s claims are similarly meritless. Officer contends
that he was not given sufficient time in the jail library or the use of a computer to
review discovery. But this claim requires consideration of matters outside the
record, which we do not consider in a direct appeal. State v. McFarland, 127
Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
Officer also challenges the credibility of Wood’s testimony and reasserts his
own version of the events underlying his conviction. However, we do not review a
jury’s credibility determinations. State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 38, 941 P.2d 1102 (1997). Finally, Officer reiterates his desire to have Andrews reappointed to
represent him at trial. Since this claim was adequately briefed by counsel, we do
21 No. 77946-0-1/22
not address it. ~ RAP 10.10(a) (purpose of statement of additional grounds is
to permit appellant, “to identify and discuss those matters related to the decision
under review that the [appellant] believes have not been adequately addressed by
the brief filed by the [appellant’s] counsel”).
We remand for the trial court to add a notation to Officer’s judgment and
sentence clarifying that the total term of confinement and community custody
actually served may not exceed the statutory maximum. In all other respects, we
affirm.
~ I
WE CONCUR:
/ - F t